Lets make a deal!!!!!!!!!!
soapdog at mac.com
Fri Nov 17 06:31:37 EST 2006
gee what a horrible thread....
On Nov 17, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Dave wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2006, at 08:35, Bernard Devlin wrote:
>> Dave said
>> > I think that there is a lot of silly, sometimes personal crap on
>> > this list on the odd occasion and I reckon it boils down to this:
>> > Someone relates some (usually fairly truthful) bad news about
>> > RunRev and then someone else tries to make it "all right" by
>> > relating all the good things about RunRev (that you invariably
>> > already know) or berates your apparent apathy in investigating
>> > problems
>> > [....]
>> > Well lets all just make a deal?????
>> > No one rain on the parade and no one stop the rain from
>> > falling!!!!!!!!
>> Obviously this in the context of the running dispute between you
>> and me.
> Slightly, it was mostly based an earlier flame-fest which was
> started in the "Quality #1 issue" thread I think.
>> I have followed this list almost every day for the past 4 years.
>> Because I was not working with Rev every day, if people put up
>> claims in the past (positive or negative), I would not challenge
>> them. As I am working with Rev every day now, if someone is going
>> to make claims that it Rev is fundamentally buggy and that the
>> company is in danger of going out of business because of this,
> There are a lot of bugs in the RunRev Engine, the IDE and the
> documentation that have not been fixed in over three years and some
> of them are very low level and therefore fundamental to the system.
>> I'm not going to let it go unchallenged.
> Does it make you feel better?
>> What you're asking for is an end to discussion.
> I don't mind a discussion but lets keep it to the subject at hand
> and not resort to mud-slinging and low beahaviour.
>> You are asking to be able to make exagerrated claims (positive or
>> negative), and for these claims to go unchallenged.
> I don't make exagerrated claims. I don't care if they are
> challenged or not.
>> I got involved in a debate with you precisely because you seem to
>> have little hesitancy in making sweeping or false allegations
>> (these are all from 10th Nov):
>> "There is definitely a problem with "silly" bugs and lack of a
>> clear way of finding answers to problems"
>> "it takes a long time (more than necessary) to become a RunRev
>> "more support effort is put into developing/fixing the Engine than
>> the IDE."
>> "something needs to be done to address the backlog of bugs and
>> make the IDE much more stable"
>> "I really hope that some bugs get fixed soon and the IDE is over
> All the above is true, and, it seems that RunRev think that way too
> since they are now making a bug-fix release. Hooray!
>> "RunRev will stop growing and eventually die."
> This is out of context, I think what I said was that if they didn't
> fix some of the old bugs and address the support pricing issue it
> would stop growing and eventually die, and I believe this to be
> true. However, no one can say 100% what will happen, so it's really
> not worth arguing about/discussing it.
>> I didn't berate you for your apathy nor indulge in "personal crap".
> If you say so.
>> I challenged your claims, because they seem to be exaggerated
>> and/or false. When you actually listed one of the bugs that is a
>> fundamental problem for you I tried to help you find out more
>> about what is going on in that situation so that we could work
>> together as a group to try to get that bug fixed.
> Everything that can be done as a 3rd party developer has been done
> on this bug, unless you can think of something else, but from your
> posts it doesn't seem like you can think of anything either. Apart
> from the reasons I mentioned in another post, I also wanted to see
> if it had been addressed in 2.7.x, it seems it hasn't. Given that
> this problem is fundamental to the whole system and given that it
> can take a very long time to track down and isolate, it would seem
> reasonable that at the very least the documentation be changed to
> include some kind of warning about the use of "me" and the
> sharedText property in fields. This could easily have been done in
> any of the releases since March,
>> But it seems that you are more interested in complaining about
>> bugs and running down Runrev than you are in solving them and
>> promoting Rev.
> The point is that there are LOADS of bugs that have been logged for
> a LONG TIME without being fixed. Over and over we get a new release
> with all the same bugs present plus a lot of new problems. I just
> feel that there should be a bug-fix release, which is now going to
> happen. I could either do nothing or voice an opinion here.
> I've sold 4 (I think) RunRev Licenses in the past three years, If
> that's not "promoting Rev" then I don't know what is! I've come
> close to selling 4 or 5 more, but unfortunately the bugs I
> mentioned above (along with other factors I have already mentioned)
> prevented these sales.
>> Having been challenged,
> Sorry I didn't realize I'd been challenged! Must have missed that bit!
>> you're now asking that no-one rain on your your parade. That's
>> not a reasonable thing to ask for.
> I really don't give a flying hoot! It's your parade that is getting
> rained on, in my parade it's already pouring but you seem insistent
> that I get an umbrella in order that I don't get any more wet,
> however, I'd rather stay wet for now and try to get something done
> so the roof is not so leaky and therefore stay dry and cosy!
> All the Best
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode